Canada Alberta Blog on The Huffington Posthttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/alberta/
Canada Alberta blog posts from The Huffington Posthttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marc-joiner/alberta-oil-and-gas_b_7888620.htmlMarc Joinerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marc-joiner/alberta-oil-and-gas_b_7888620.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&ir=Canada+Alberta
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:34:42 -0400*This is the second in a three-part series on the new imperative for oil and gas producers.*

The world is always reinventing itself, and for that growing number of organizations and their CFOs who desire or expect Finance to play more of a catalytic and strategic role, the key challenge is likely not in seeing the need but in overcoming a number of systemic barriers in their way, in particular:

Inability to produce timely and relevant forecasts

A fragmented systems environment

Ineffective financial close processes.

Deloitte recently surveyed CFOs from many larger Canadian upstream oil and gas companies. Here are some highlights of what we learned:

60% of participants identified current conditions as an opportunity rather than a challenge seeing increased competitiveness, greater productivity and improved quality of the workforce coming out of this downturn.

75% of CFOs identified improvements to cost/efficiency management as a high priority.

Growth capital has largely been deferred, in addition to reduced sustaining capital in some cases.

83% of CFOs identified improvements to the balance sheet as a high priority.

CFOs were generally split on assigning a high or medium priority to hedging strategy.

More stats can be found below.

As it happens, 61 per cent of CFOs already see the need for Finance to become more strategic, with improvements to their business partnering and analytical thinking being key manifestations of the goal. We see enhancement of their typical approach in three crucial areas -- capital planning, budgeting and forecasting -- as part of the critical path forward. More info on each area, next time.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/desmog-canada/grassroots-oil-and-gas-action-canada_b_7853108.htmlDeSmog Canadahttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/desmog-canada/grassroots-oil-and-gas-action-canada_b_7853108.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&ir=Canada+Alberta
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:07:43 -0400Greg Rickford told a room full of oil and gas executives in a luxury Rocky Mountain resort last fall. "You are fighting an uphill battle for public confidence."

Rickford, who attended the meeting at the request of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), encouraged the executives to do more to spread the oil industry's message to the Canadian public.

"Much of the debate over energy is characterized by myth or emotion," he said, suggesting scientists and campaigners critical of development in the Alberta oilsands were "crowding out the real facts."

Rickford made no mention of Canada's international climate commitments, but he did deride concerns about pollution from the oilsands -- the country's fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Rickford's advice, released to Greenpeace via an Access to Information request, marked the beginning of a decisive shift in industry's public relations campaigns.

As CAPP described it to The Guardian: "The energy industry is embarking on a different level of engagement and CAPP is moving to a ground campaign to activate industry supporters."

While we'll likely never know the level of coordination happening behind the scenes, the shared vision going forward was clearly articulated by Rickford: "Those of us here in this room have a responsibility to tell our shared energy story," he intoned. "We must all be on the same page."

Of Oil and Patriotism

Rickford's call for a new "shared energy story" was in October of 2014.

At that point, the narrative that environmental advocates were "un-Canadian" had been seeded in public discourse, most doggedly by blogger Vivian Krause and most famously by key Conservative players high in the political party hierarchy.

The connection between pro-industry ideals and patriotism had been ham-handedly advanced by controversial personality Ezra Levant through his Ethical Oil campaign (which seemed to lose steam after its industry and Conservative-party connections were exposed by DeSmog).

Since then, the attempt to persuade Canadians of the Canadian-ness of the oil industry has ramped up and become much more polished.

A whole host of campaigns designed to advance the agenda of the fossil fuel industry have cropped up: Resource Works, British Columbians for Prosperity, Energy Citizens, Coal Alliance, Canadian Natural Resources Alliance, Pipeline Action, and many others.

Described as a "one-man oil sands advocate...in [a] PR war," last year Battershill told the National Post he wants to create a more "balanced conversation" about the Alberta oilsands.

But DeSmog Canada's research indicates Battershill and Canada Action appear to have close ties to the oil industry and to powerful campaigners from the Conservative Party of Canada.

Who are Cody Battershill and Canada Action?

Battershill is a young Calgary realtor in the top one per cent of agents in his Canada-wide company. As he tells the story, his oilsands advocacy began in 2010 when he was walking along Vancouver's Robson Street and noticed that a LUSH cosmetics store had placed some "Stop Oilsands" posters in its window. It caught his attention, he says. He knew nothing about oil and gas but "common sense says that everything in that store is made possible by natural resources."

Battershill said he decided to get involved to foster "a more informed conversation about resource development." He started a Twitter account and has been building Canada Action ever since.

It echoes a longer-running campaign in the U.S. -- run by Alex Epstein from the pro-industry Center for Industrial Progress -- that makes a moral case for fossil fuels. Epstein, like Battershill, argues social prosperity relies on the consumption of fossil fuels while overlooking the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows the negative impacts of industrial pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions.

Battershill declined to comment on his relationship with Epstein. Epstein did not respond to an interview request.

Battershill, right on point with Rickford's advice, has said critics of industry add "a lot of fear and emotion to the argument that's not supported by facts."

Alongside his prolific Twitter activity, Battershill writes articles for the Huffington Post, the Calgary Herald and the Journal of the Canadian Heavy Oil Association, where he often opposes the opinions of climate campaigners or other environmental advocates.

So is Canada Action a one-man band as Battershill would prefer people to believe or is there more than meets the eye?

Deep Industry, Conservative Connections

Canada Action was registered as a federal not-for-profit society in September 2014. With a little help from his friends, Battershill held a launch party at the Woods Buffalo Brewing Co. in Fort McMurray the same day. (Through a corporate registry search, DeSmog Canada discovered Canada Action existed as a numbered corporation between 2012 and 2013 before being renamed Canada Action Coalition in August of 2013.)

Kim Farwell, leader of oilsands extraction at Syncrude and two-time former president of the Conservative Party of Canada's riding association in Fort McMurray helped Battershill organize the event along with Robbie Picard, Canada Action campaigner. Another organizer, Diane Slater, announced she was retiring as chief administrative officer at the Fort McMurray Chamber of Commerce -- whose ranks are loaded with heavy oil businesses -- to take on a more active role in Canada Action.

As a University of Calgary political science student, Gelinas helped organize the visit of right-wing, incendiary speaker Ann Coulter to the university campus in 2011. In one of her more famous claims about Muslims, Coulter said, "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."

By the time he graduated, Gelinas was a seasoned political campaigner working closely with key conservative organizations.

Gelinas went on to work with the Manning Centre, an organization that promotes conservative ideas and politicians. In 2013, before the Alberta provincial election, he presented a workshop at the Manning Centre titled: "Do you know how to get your voters out?"

Gelinas is also an expert consultant on NationBuilder, which provides software for political campaigns, helping candidates organize their online presence. NationBuilder's power lies in converting social media activity into datasets useful for elections campaigning and fundraising.

Gelinas studied under conservative political strategist, and Stephen Harper's former chief of staff, Tom Flanagan. In his book, Winning Power: Canadian Campaigning in the Twenty-First Century, Flanagan writes that he contracted Gelinas' company Blue Direct to perform "auto-dialler polls and electronic town halls."

Blue Direct is still run by Gelinas' colleague and conservative campaigner Richard Dur who was credited for helping win the 2011 federal Conservative majority. Dur is a trainee of the Koch brothers-funded Leadership Institute, a training centre for "conservative activists" that counts many senior Canadian conservative leaders among its alumni.

Furthering the connections between Gelinas' businesses, colleagues and the Conservative Party of Canada, Riley Braun, an employee of Alberta Blue Strategies from 2011 to 2012 went on to become a stakeholder relations assistant in the office of Stephen Harper.

Canada Action's listed address is the same as Alberta Blue Strategies. It is also the same as Patchwork Investments, owned by Susan Gelinas, the third member of Canada Action's board of directors. There is little information about Patchwork Investments available online, but it is described on several websites as providing investment advice. Several calls to Patchwork's listed phone number went unanswered.

Canada Action also shares an address with Data Trek Inc., an oil and gas data service provider. According to LinkedIn, the president of Data Trek is Dave Gelinas, who is a Facebook friend of Matt Gelinas, Richard Dur and Cody Battershill. DeSmog Canada tried to contact Matt Gelinas through Blue Direct to clarify his relationship to Dave Gelinas, but messages were left unanswered. A publicly available phone number for Data Trek is no longer in service.

Following the Money

As a non-profit society, Canada Action's funders are not on the public record. Battershill says his supporters are ordinary citizens volunteering their time and effort to achieve that more "balanced conversation" about responsible resource development.

"There is nothing astroturf or fake about my passion for my country," he added. "I've put my money, my time and my actions where my mouth is." McNish did not ask Battershill if he receives industry or political funds.

DeSmog Canada made several interview requests to Battershill, who declined to answer questions e-mailed to him at his request. These included questions about Canada Action's relationship with the Conservative Party, Battershill's relationship with Matt Gelinas and whether or not Canada Action is currently or has ever received funding from individuals or groups associated with the fossil fuel industry or the Conservative Party.

In an e-mailed statement Battershill said, "We're strong supporters of Canada's oilsands and the resource sector generally because we know how important these industries are to Canada's present and future prosperity. We believe it's critical to educate Canadians about the social and economic benefits provided by the resource sector and its commitment to world-class environmental stewardship."

He added the organization is non-partisan.

"We accept donations from individuals and we sell Canada Action merchandise to support our campaigns," the statement said.

Canada Action "Oversimplifies" Oilsands Issue

Battershill says he is standing up for more balanced and inclusive conversations about Canada's energy resources. Although to onlookers, Battershill's shrill criticism of climate and environment advocates may be working in the wrong direction.

In addition to celebrating Canada's strong economy and its reliance on the extractive industries, Battershill also spends ample time countering the claims of prominent environmental organizations and renewable energy advocates.

"I think his intentions are sincere," Chapman said of Battershill. "The problem is that I think he's too much of a fan and I think he gets clouded. It's difficult from Calgary to see the oilsands in perspective. I see lots of people have that problem. It's also difficult from outside of Alberta to see the oilsands clearly," he said.

Chapman said pro- and anti-oilsands groups take extreme positions, "like religious beliefs" that dominate the conversation, crowding out the facts.

"And it doesn't matter what the facts are, it's the belief systems that are what's dominating. And quite frankly, they always will. What is open yet is the adult conversation, as opposed to the elementary school recess conversation."

Chapman said that while Battershill's "heart is in the right place...he is a little naïve."

"This guy wants to win an argument. The thing is it's not an argument. It's about a design. We have to take a design approach to this thing, not an adversarial approach."

Chapman added that while he thinks Canada will continue to develop fossil fuels for years to come, "we have a responsibility to do it better."

He said that he owns an "I love oilsands" button that he wears in Fort McMurray. "I'm an owner of the oilsands. I want to be proud of it. I want to love the oilsands," he said, adding, "I'm not there yet."

"People are trying to oversimplify the issue. And people like Cody is well-intentioned on the industry side, but he's oversimplifying the issue."
- Carol Linnitt and Donald Gutstein, DeSmog Canada

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Summer is now in full swing, which means school-aged kids have officially traded in their classrooms and cafeteria lunches for the beach and high-fructose freezies. As a result, parents are faced with the prospect of not having anywhere to send their kids for six hours every day -- a quandary many deal with by sending their children away for even longer: to summer camp.

This decision may come with varying degrees of guilt, but as a former camper the best advice I could give is to just do it.

Of course, only you know your child and what they can handle. However when I first started going to summer camp at the age of eight, it could certainly be said that I was not a happy camper.

My older brother went to camp for many years and I'd heard stories of his camp shenanigans, so I was excited to follow in his footsteps. But this was my first time sleeping away from family, and about an hour after I said goodbye to my parents I became a blubbering mess of homesickness. I wailed almost non-stop for the first couple days and begged to go home.

Once, I even cried so hard they sent me to the nurse's hut to read Scooby Doo comics until I calmed down enough to rejoin my fellow campers.

I feel truly sorry for the staff that had to deal with me -- camp counsellors are truly unsung heroes. It would have been much easier for them to just acquiesce to my pleadings and send me back to my family. Nonetheless, their perseverance in me paid off.

Once I stopped missing home, I started actually having fun. So much so that by the end of the week when it was time to go home I cried because I didn't want to leave. When the brochures for camp arrived in the mail the following year, my parents asked if I wanted to go back. My answer was an unequivocal yes.

This was the first of eight trips to summer camp for me. Even though I only got to spend a single week per year there, camp quickly became a part of my identity.

One of the staples of my camp is that they tie beads on string around your wrist for different achievements, like swimming, archery, rock climbing and such. These beads became a source of competition and pride, so many campers would come home with a rainbow of plastic baubles around their wrists. I assume most people would get rid of the beads when they got home, but one year in fifth grade I refused to cut them off. I kept them on until December, when the cheap string binding the beads to my wrist must have become a virtual microcosm of bacterial life.

My mom finally forced me to remove the beads before Christmas. I sobbed as she took out the scissors and snipped, revealing my bare wrist for the first time in months.

As I went through the daily struggles of a fifth grader, it had been a comfort to keep a little piece of camp alive on my arm. Now that I am an adult, I no longer wear plastic beads as jewellery, but I do still hold my memories of summer camp near and dear to me.

I am moving across the world in under two months, and one of the items I'm taking along is my faded camp T-shirt. As I settle into my new life, every once and awhile I'll be able to put it on and be transported to blissful afternoons on the wharf and evenings around the campfire.

So parents, send your kids to summer camp. Even if they grumble about being torn away from their WiFi, the people they meet and the experiences they have will soon make them forget about Facebook, if only for a few days.

Camp will make an impact on your children, even in years to come when they trade their summers at the beach for summers in the office. Because camp isn't just a place, it's a state of mind.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Some argue that the name "rare earths" is a misnomer because these elements are found in large quantities on virtually every continent. But unlike a lot of ores, rare earth metals are typically found in very low concentrations, mixed with others metals and metalloid compounds. This makes them hard to mine and refine.

The problem is that unlike the magic ingredients in your recipes, "a little dash won't do ya" in renewable energy technologies. A single large wind turbine (rated at about 3.5 megawatts) typically contains around 600 kilograms of rare earths. This means that if we really want to move away from fossil fuels as an energy source, we will need tremendous amounts of these rare earths.

OK, you ask, what is the point of this article? Well, the renewable energy boom has a dirty little secret and I use the word "little" in an ironic sense. You see, the process of refining the raw ore to a usable state can involve a lot of steps and, depending on how you do the work, it can generate a tremendous amount of toxic waste in the process.

Because of this "feature," virtually all of the world's rare earths come from some of the least developed portions of China and their production is poisoning the atmosphere and killing China's animals and people. It is hard to look at the pictures in the BBC feature on the Baogang Steel and Rare Earth Complex in Baotou and not feel ashamed about our part in creating this growing human health and ecological disaster.

We, as Canadians, have clamoured for renewable energy technologies while refusing to do our part to supply the raw materials necessary for their implementation. Central British Columbia, Northern Quebec, Northern Saskatchewan, all have incredibly rich deposits of rare earth metals that we have chosen, as Canadians, not to develop.

If North American and European countries are really interested in renewable energy technologies then it is up to these countries to carry some of the environmental freight associated with them. Asking lesser developed countries to deal with the negative consequences of the mining and refining of rare earths is the ultimate in hypocrisy. We ask for clean technologies but refuse to get our hands dirty in the process.

We possess the best regulatory and technical abilities in the world, but leave this environmentally risky technology to the countries with the laxest environmental standards and little or no government oversight.

The arguments I hear are that companies are not willing to invest in countries with strict regulatory requirements, but if there is one area where government support would appear necessary it is the development of rare earth capabilities. Like the Swan Hills facility in Alberta which, while controversial, addressed a serious environmental need, so do we need to mine and refine rare earths in North America and Europe.

As for my friends in the environmental industry, you need to show a willingness to stand behind your words. If you want wind energy, advanced photovoltaic solar and better battery technologies and don't want to be seen as hypocrites, then get behind the drive to win the social licence for rare earth mining, refining and research.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Who doesn't love ice cream on a hot day? Well it's July, and many hot days = A LOT of ice cream! In an attempt to lighten up my daily ice cream needs, I decided to put a twist on my simple two-ingredient banana "ice cream" recipe by adding one of my favourite fruits: fresh cherries! Berries are also a fabulous addition to basic banana ice cream.

Note: best eaten right away, but can also be put into an airtight container and frozen.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ecojustice/nexen-pipeline-spill-premiers-energy-strategy_b_7844282.htmlEcojusticehttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/ecojustice/nexen-pipeline-spill-premiers-energy-strategy_b_7844282.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&ir=Canada+Alberta
Wed, 22 Jul 2015 18:54:18 -0400
Or so it seems, if recent headlines are any indication.

And yet, despite a growing number of pipeline incidents and mounting international and domestic pressure to act on climate change, Canada's premiers have inexplicably signed off on a national energy strategy that includes plans to fast-track pipelines to move fossil fuels to overseas markets. They seemed to have missed the message that expanding a leaky and unreliable pipeline network does not just put people and the environment at immediate risk, but also takes us in the wrong direction on climate change.

Nexen's ruptured pipeline is fairly new and started operations just last year, which makes this accident particularly troubling.

Even with double-layered construction and a "fail-safe" leak detection system, the spill was not detected until a contractor walking along the pipeline's route saw the breach. Unfortunately, despite technological advances, pipeline monitoring systems still consistently fail. According to an Inside Climate News investigation, the public reported 22 per cent of spills whereas oil industry workers reported another 62 per cent. All told, people -- not systems -- are detecting spills when they happen.

A week after the spill was first reported, Nexen still does not know what caused the pipeline to rupture or when it might have started to leak. The pipeline may have been leaking for hours or even days before a problem was finally detected. Clearly, when it comes to pipelines, new does not necessarily mean better -- or even safer.

These leaks come at a high cost. Past history tells us that pipeline spills can cause irreparable harm to ecosystems and threaten human health. Local First Nations communities have expressed concerns about the Nexen spill's impacts on the nearby muskeg, a swampy ecosystem that is a source of traditional medicines, berries and wild game.

We also know that cleaning up spills, especially those involving bitumen -- the tar-like substance extracted from the ground in the oilsands -- is no easy feat. In 2010, an Enbridge pipeline burst in Michigan, spilling more than three million litres of diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River. It took several years and more than US$1 billion to clean up that mess, the worst in-land spill in U.S. history.

These are just some of the reasons why the team here at Ecojustice is committed to stand up against pipeline projects that put people and the environment at risk.

In September, we will appear before the National Energy Board, on behalf of our clients Raincoast Conservation Foundation and Living Ocean Society, to make final arguments in the Kinder Morgan project review. And after more than a year of procedural motions, we will finally be going to court to challenge the Northern Gateway pipeline in October.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marc-joiner/oil-and-gas-alberta_b_7841470.htmlMarc Joinerhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marc-joiner/oil-and-gas-alberta_b_7841470.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&ir=Canada+Alberta
Tue, 21 Jul 2015 13:26:48 -0400 *This is the first in a three-part series on the new imperative for oil and gas producers.*

Call it the moment of truth.

Though hardly out, oil is still down -- and the same goes for Canada's high-cost producers. And though this particular bust is not altogether like the last one, a comparison to the 1980s can be helpful. The early part of that decade saw rising U.S. domestic production and, like today, Saudi Arabia's reaction was to flood the market in an attempt to price out marginal players relying on less cost-efficient sources. It took 19 years for prices to recover from the 1985-86 downturn, and producers are looking at today's conditions concerned volatility will continue well beyond a 12-month window.

If it does, what's their best chance to get through it? We think the core of the solution is a more strategic CFO and Finance function.

Alright, easier said than done. CFOs and their teams already have difficult jobs. They must balance four complementary roles, or "faces," all of which rightly belong to every CFO -- just in different proportions, depending on the organization:

• As Stewards, CFOs concentrate on protecting and preserving the organization's critical assets and accurately reporting its financial position and operations to stakeholders.

• As Operators, they concentrate on the efficiency and effectiveness of the core transaction processing processes and systems to ensure a 'rock solid' quality-based foundation.

• As Catalysts, they drive behaviours across Finance and, more importantly, across the entire organization, to execute strategic and financial objectives while also creating a risk-intelligent culture.

While the Steward and Operator roles are foundational, focused primarily on activities within the Finance function itself, the roles that play "above the line" -- Catalyst and Strategist -- focus on partnering with and enabling the business.

Of course, leveraging financial perspective and insight that will ultimately create new value is easier said than done. More on that, next time.

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mike-hudema/alberta-climate-change_b_7809114.htmlMike Hudemahttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mike-hudema/alberta-climate-change_b_7809114.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&ir=Canada+Alberta
Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:18:36 -0400
Parkland County, Alberta has declared a state of agricultural disaster because moisture levels in some areas of the province are at their lowest levels in 50 years.

Recently, parts of southern Alberta were hit with power outages and major floods because of extreme thunderstorms.

None of these events can be directly linked to climate change but they are all signs of the climate crisis and extreme weather events are expected only to increase in intensity and frequency the longer the world fails to act.

You'd think with such clear signs all around her Premier Rachel Notley would get the message. Unfortunately she hasn't.

Instead of talking with the country's other provincial leaders about how to speed up the transition to renewable energy, Notley met with Quebec's premier to talk about how to dig us further into the problem by green lighting the $12-billion Energy East tar sands pipeline.

If constructed, Energy East would carry 1.1 million barrels of crude a day and producing the crude needed to fill it would generate up 32 million tonnes of additional greenhouse gas emissions each year -- an impact even greater than the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.

That's the equivalent of adding more than seven million cars to Canada's roads. I'm sorry Premier Notley, but that's not climate leadership.

What politicians need to understand is that decisions related to climate need to be based on science, not political posturing.

The scientific prescription is pretty clear - we need to leave the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground and transition to renewables and sustainable transportation as quickly as possible. The International Energy Agency, the United Nations and the International Panel on Climate Change have all told us that. Most recently, over 100 scientists and economists called for an end to new tar sands development.

If we listen to the science, and we should, the answer isn't more pipelines and refineries - they would lock us into more bad decisions for decades to come. The answer is more solar panels and wind turbines. It is more high-speed rail and electric vehicles, more bicycles, and geothermal energy. It's more retrofitted buildings and localized food production.

It's about building an economy that rests within the ecological limits of the planet, not outside of them, and one that puts workers and communities most directly impacted by the coming changes first to benefit in the transition. That's the Canadian energy strategy we need.

Other countries are already showing the way. Last week Denmark produced 140% of its electricity from wind power. Germany currently employs over 350,000 people in its renewable energy sector, most of which is locally owned, and many countries around the world are on the road to 100% fossil freedom.

Unfortunately, in Canada, the political will to take these steps is still missing in action and any hopes of provincial leadership are drying up faster than California.

Luckily, while our political representatives aren't getting the message, the public is. While Notley may have brokered a backroom deal with the Quebec government, she hasn't made a deal with the Quebec people. Given that over 25,000+ people marched in the streets of Quebec City this past April calling for climate action, she won't get such a deal any time soon.

We need to say no to new pipelines and to keep fighting tarsands projects so that we can do what's needed for the planet as well as give time for a new economy to take root.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/derek-james-from/calgary-vaporizer-ban_b_7687424.htmlDerek James Fromhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/derek-james-from/calgary-vaporizer-ban_b_7687424.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&ir=Canada+Alberta
Fri, 17 Jul 2015 13:07:52 -0400
You may remember that in 2013 councillors discussed banning shark fins even though they knew the bylaw was outside their jurisdiction. Despite this, some councillors--motivated by feelings about the cruel treatment of sharks--vigorously supported the ban.

Fortunately, no municipal government in Alberta can ban something merely because it disapproves or thinks it sets a bad example. So the ban's advocates fabricated a narrative to support their cause. Sharks are apex predators, they reasoned. Apex predators bio-accumulate mercury. Eating shark fins could lead to mercury poisoning. Ipso facto, a health crisis!

Of course, this was a sham to distract Calgarians from the fact that Council had no authority to enact the ban. No councillors were truly motivated by concern over mercury poisoning. To his credit, Coun. Andre Chabot did not support the ban because he saw it as an attempt by a handful of his colleagues to codify their feelings into law.

Well, it's happening again. This time Council is about to enact a ban on vaping. And just like the previous ban, some Councillors (spurred on by Alberta Health Services execs) have prioritized their disapproval of vaping over restraining themselves within their proper authority. The adopted narrative this time is that vaping is unsafe and a nuisance; it should therefore be banned in all public spaces--including all private property to which the public has access. It's prohibition all over again.

The narrative concocted to support this ban is a sham too. Vaping is not a public health crisis. Aside from a handful of deeply flawed studies that have been discredited, the accumulated evidence is becoming clearer and clearer--vaping is orders of magnitude less harmful than smoking is. And it's hardly more of a nuisance than wearing an excessive amount of perfume.

Enter Coun. Chabot. He recently told the Calgary Herald that the proposed vaping ban is "ridiculous" since "e-cigarettes have helped a lot of people that I know get off of the use of tobacco." He's right. It would be ridiculous (irrational, in fact) to ban one of the most successful means of smoking cessation and treat it like a combustible tobacco product.

The e-cigarettes used when vaping contain no tobacco and are not burned like traditional cigarettes. Instead, the vapor they emit contains a small amount of nicotine and some innocuous ingredients that are electronically vaporized and inhaled. Whether inhaled directly or second-hand, vaping is not associated with any of the negative health effects of inhaling combusted tobacco products. Importantly, statistics indicate that vaping helps smokers stop smoking.

Lacking their health crisis narrative, what other support can these prohibitionists muster? Vaping sets a bad example and will corrupt the youth. In other words, won't someone think of the children? Kids could observe someone vaping, take up the habit, and ultimately become smokers. It's a so-called "gateway" hypothesis. Aside from the statistics undermining this gateway hypothesis, you'd search long and hard through Alberta's Municipal Government Act to find where it says that Council can ban a practise merely because it doesn't like the way it looks.

The real effect of this ban will be to curtail consumer choice and restrict economic freedom. Currently, customers can sample vaping products in retail stores so that they purchase a product that will work for them. If vaping is banned in all public spaces, customers will no longer be able to make use of this important service.

Even if it were within Council's jurisdiction, a vaping ban covering all public spaces--including private businesses--would have the negative consequence of making it more difficult for smokers to stop smoking. This is irrational.

City Council should be considering reasonable accommodations to help smokers stop smoking. And even though the City should be free to enact policies restricting or banning vaping on its own property, it should butt-out and let people decide what to permit on their own.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/buzz-bishop/calgary-looks-like-vancouver_b_7818754.htmlBuzz Bishophttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/buzz-bishop/calgary-looks-like-vancouver_b_7818754.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&ir=Canada+Alberta
Fri, 17 Jul 2015 12:53:55 -0400
I'm finally consistently saying C-Train instead of SkyTrain, I know more about the Flames' prospects than the Canucks', and I love the Calgary Stampede like the summer Christmas that it is.

But I still miss the coast.

So I've found little pockets of my adopted hometown where I can go and imagine I'm in Vancouver. I'll admit, some of these are a stretch, but when you're homesick you look for any glimpse you can find.

So squint a little bit, use your imagination and see if you can see what I mean with these 13 Places In Calgary That Feel Like Vancouver:

4. An hour away from the city are many heart pounding hikes to the top of the Rockies. Vancouver has the Grouse Grind, Calgary has Ha Ling Peak, Powderface Ridge, Sulphur Mountain and dozens of others.

7. Water. Anything along the water and imagine you're on the coast. That water is hard to find, though. My wife imagines she's crossing Granville St Bridge when she goes over the Glenmore Causeway. The pathways along the Bow River and Elbow River, and Glenmore Reservoir are the closest we have to a seawall in Calgary, and I love them.

9. Australians in the mountains are a mainstay whether you're skiing in North Vancouver, Whistler, Banff, Lake Louise or K Country. It's almost at a point where G'Day feels like a truly Canadian winter greeting.

10. Calgary has a Mount Pleasant, so does Vancouver. Both have neighbourhoods named Killarney. They both even boast a Stanley Park. Now, the Stanley Park in Calgary is much smaller (of course) but it's still pretty, don't you think?

11. Calgary's Chinatown is nowhere near the size of it's coastal cousin, but the signs are just as unreadable to me, the architecture is just as ornate, and there are tiny little bakeries where I can sate my urge for a siao pao. Good enough.

12. A midway is a midway is a midway. Many of those people you see working the Calgary Stampede in early July will ride the carnie caravan to Vancouver by the end of August. Mini donuts are mini donuts whether in Alberta or BC, they're awesome.

13. There is Vancouver food in Calgary too. Rodney's Oyster House is here, so is Cafe Artigianno. On summer weekends, my back deck makes me feel like I'm in Vancouver. I pour some Granville Island Brewing into my frosted Vancouver Canucks pint glass and wonder how things could have been for that team.

Because in Calgary, they've got a darn exciting hockey team. They've reloaded for the future quickly, and my boys are fans. As much as I miss Vancouver, and look for it in hidden places in Calgary, it's good to be here after all.

What about you? Do you have favorite places in Calgary that remind you of Toronto or Saskatoon or Houston or Vancouver or wherever you're from? Share them in the comments below.

As a farming family, it's really depressing to see a year's worth of planning just baking away in the fields, losing your profit and losing your yields every day. So, trying not to worry about our crops more than we are, a little humour to lighten the mood...

1. Obsessively check your satellite weather app on your smart phone.

2. You want to leave the farm for the rest of the growing season so you don't have to watch your crops die.

3. Scout your fields with your eyes closed so you don't have to see crop conditions.

13. Cut your hay and hope that it rains because your crops need it more.

14. Join a Twitter support group #drought15 #justrain

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/blair-king/energy-east-pipeline_1_b_7814180.htmlBlair Kinghttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/blair-king/energy-east-pipeline_1_b_7814180.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&ir=Canada+Alberta
Fri, 17 Jul 2015 03:00:05 -0400Energy East pipeline, a proposed 4,600-kilometre pipeline designed to carry 1.1-million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in Eastern Canada.

It is unique among the eastward pipeline proposals in that its entire length remains within Canadian borders and is thus protected from U.S. political concerns. Backers of Energy East point out that Quebec and New Brunswick currently import more than 700,000 barrels of oil every day -- or 86 per cent of their refinery needs -- from countries such as Algeria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria.

While those imports are gradually swinging towards the U.S., that still represent imports and those U.S. imports travel almost exclusively by rail.

This pipeline expansion is being aggressively targeted by activists, primarily based on concerns over climate change. For these people, pipelines aren't really an issue, per se, but rather represent the only opportunity they can see to fight the battle they actually want to fight: against climate change. It is in effect a proxy war.

The activists have been told that if they can block new pipelines they can choke off the development of oil sands by stranding this resource and in doing so can kill off the "tar sands." Ironically, they believe this because that is what the proponents of the pipelines told them when they initially pushed for the development of these pipelines.

The problem is that this was never the truth. As indicated in a Maclean's article by Dr. Andrew Leach of the University of Alberta, given the investment already in the ground, the best these protestors can do is to choke off some theoretical further growth of the oil sands. Even with $50/barrel oil and no pipelines existing, current oil sands facilities, and a number of nearly completed developments currently underway, won't go away anytime soon.

The question must be asked: what will it take to slow the growth of the oil sands? Well, too much money has been invested in existing or almost completed projects to simply abandon these facilities, and most will continue to generate healthy profits even in a lower price oil market. Thus the only way to limit future growth of the oil sands is on the demand side. This has to be done by putting a price on carbon and providing cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels.

Realistically, the only thing that can stop to the development of the oil sands is the combined might of government regulation and the market.

The argument against Energy East that I find most confusing is that it runs the risk of increasing oil exports. I am not sure why this is a bad thing? From a nationalistic perspective, a stronger national economy can only be better for Canada.

In a world with plentiful oil supplies from numerous markets, fighting oil exports represents cutting off your nose to spite your face. The world represents one big market and unless you treat it as such, any work done in Canada can be just as easily undone in Nigeria, Kuwait or Algeria.

It is time the climate change activists stopped fighting these proxy wars and started fighting the actual war they want to fight. Don't fight against the safest, least environmentally risky form of transport for this necessary resource; fight to reduce the market for the resource.

If the demand exists, then supply will be found to meet that demand. Until a market-based mechanism is found, we can't realistically stop the oil sands, so the pragmatic approach would be to ensure that oil sands are developed responsibly.

Pragmatically, pipelines represent the safest, most environmentally responsible way to transport that oil over land. Even from a greenhouse gas perspective, pipelines use less energy to transport oil than by rail.

I know fighting Energy East makes for great soundbites and will no doubt bring in lots of donations to activist groups; but it will do nothing to slow the exploitation of the oil sands.

Moreover, if we force the future oil sands production out of pipelines and onto trains it will result in more spills, more polluted watersheds and most importantly more Gogamas, Galenas and Lac Megantics.

If the activists really cared about climate change, they would not be fighting pipelines. They would be fighting for market-based mechanisms like carbon pricing. History has shown the only way to reduce fossil fuel use (and resultant carbon emissions) is to address the demand side of the ledger.

RELATED ON HUFFPOST:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/raffi/bc-lng-christy-clark-pope_b_7794518.htmlRaffi Cavoukianhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/raffi/bc-lng-christy-clark-pope_b_7794518.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&ir=Canada+Alberta
Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:38:00 -0400hundreds of B.C. wildfires, Premier Christy Clark can disappear from view for a long time. Yet she is calling a rare summer session of the provincial legislature for an LNG debate (so-called), to rubber-stamp the ratification of her government's first proposed LNG project, near Prince Rupert.

The premier who would balance the B.C. budget on the backs of teachers and families with budget cuts to numerous services paints a rosy picture of LNG. The facts speak differently.

What Clark won't say is that LNG production involves filthy fracking: a process that involves drilling underground high pressure injections of water mixed with sand and many chemicals known to be dangerous to human health and our environment.

Fracking is also linked to substantial increases in earthquakes in regions not previously known for them. In just one week last month, Oklahoma had 35 earthquakes of 3.0 or greater magnitude, and this has alarmed oil and gas regulators. Quebec Premier Couillard has turned his back on fracking.

Last month, the state of New York issued a ban on fracking, after reams of peer-reviewed studies that show fracking is harmful to air and water quality. What's more, the LNG life cycle has a carbon footprint as bad as coal. Still, Clark ignores these facts in her sales pitch, calling LNG "the cleanest fossil fuel on the planet."

My New York state colleague, Sandra Steingraber, an award-winning ecologist, has been a leader in the fight against fracking. Often cited as the modern day Rachel Carson, Steingraber and her team have made summations of the formidable and growing science on fracking. The studies offer a decisive scientific case against the water-intensive practice.

What's surprising is that B.C.'s NDP is not opposed to massive LNG development, only to the way Clark peddles it. In Victoria's legislature, eminent climate scientist and MLA Andrew Weaver has stood alone against the B.C. Liberals' LNG plans, not for its eco-harm (as we might expect from him), but because the numbers don't add up. Weaver has outlined in detail how Clark's assessment of LNG wealth is flawed, and how her prosperity projections are fantasy.

Have corporate donations blinded the premier?

Why would Clark ignore the science and the numbers? Is she not sufficiently briefed? Or, might it be the blinding influence of millions of dollars in oil and gas company donations that her BC Liberals have received? Can democracy be so overrun by money as to corrupt sensibility and duty? In the current corporate climate, it happens all too often.

You don't have to be a climate scientist to sense that climate change is the foremost issue in the 21st century. The greatest threat to life as we know it. Properly funded public education could ensure that the populace has the required learning base for urging elected representatives to champion climate-smart policies.

Pope Francis has become the leading global figure advocating for climate action. His encyclical on climate change is, for all nations, a stirring call to action. To be effective, B.C.'s climate strategy needs to be more than a carbon tax, and there's simply no room for LNG risk.

At a critical time for addressing the global threat, we need political leaders who get the climate emergency, soundly embrace sustainable clean energies, and will tell the whole truth about our energy choices. Forget the dirty money "jobs and billions" dreams Clark and her cabinet cronies sell. Their sleight of hand is clumsy, bad for B.C., bad for our planet and the children to come.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-martin/community-mailboxes-canada-post_b_7785382.htmlDavid Martinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-martin/community-mailboxes-canada-post_b_7785382.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&ir=Canada+Alberta
Tue, 14 Jul 2015 12:21:36 -0400
Maybe I couldn't believe that Canada Post would do something this outrageous and arbitrary. Or maybe I just figured it was going to take years and years and that, at some point, the Conservatives would be turfed from power and this whole crazy scheme would be shelved. In any event, I must have rationalized that somehow it wouldn't affect me.

Well, needless to say, I was wrong. Canada Post is apparently hell-bent on eliminating home delivery for almost everyone in Canada. Call me naïve but I fail to see why such a move is necessary.

It's my understanding that Canada Post operated at a profit last year, most of that profit coming from its letter-mail service. Silly me but I thought that they might use that profit to provide home mail delivery to those currently suffering under the community mailbox regime rather than to subject more of us to it.

I also understand that Canada is the only G7 country to eliminate home mail delivery. The United States postal service still provides daily home delivery even on Saturday (as do most of the other G7 nations.

If Canada Post truly thinks that it must cut back service to make an even bigger profit, why did they not propose cutting home delivery to three or four days a week? Their letter states that they want to consult with me about the implementation of community mailboxes in my neighborhood. Why didn't they ask to consult with me at the beginning of this process in order to come up with workable alternatives that could have saved home delivery?

From what I can see, the only communal thing about community mailboxes is that neighbors can meet at them to complain about the poor service, vandalism and littering. I've yet to meet anyone who raves about their fabulous community mailbox. Rather it looks to me as if most folks have reluctantly succumbed to the whims of Canada Post and accepted third rate service as inevitable.

Although Canada Post is a Crown corporation, I have to believe that the current government is fully in support of this shortsighted move as part of their right wing, anti-government agenda. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that this is just another step in a secret plan to privatize our national postal service.

Sadly, as with other issues, the Conservatives are playing one group off against another to gain support for this measure. The millions of Canadians already stuck with community mailboxes don't see why the rest of us should still have home delivery. Sadly this results in nothing more than a race to the bottom where everyone loses when instead we should all be fighting to restore home delivery to everyone.

A national postal service is a hallmark of a civilized country. Let's remember that and put an end to the Conservatives' anti-government agenda this fall and start restoring the basic services they have been undermining for years.

The U.S. Postal Service takes pride in its motto: "Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds." If we don't take action soon, we may have to adopt a new credo for our national postal service: "We took the post out of Canada Post."

MORE ON HUFFPOST:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

]]>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/rondi-adamson/animal-welfare-policy_b_7765358.htmlRondi Adamsonhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/rondi-adamson/animal-welfare-policy_b_7765358.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-alberta&ir=Canada+Alberta
Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:36:34 -0400 have already been euthanized as the result of being injured during a race.)

And if you can't figure out why having these and other animal events take place for "entertainment" purposes (fairly certain the animal would use different terminology to describe what it was being forced into) is particularly depraved, then there is little that can be said.

All the aforementioned should not even be up for discussion. This isn't the 19th century, though this country's animal welfare legislation, largely unchanged since the 1890s, might suggest otherwise. (The Conservatives have introduced some improvements to it, but too few. Canada still routinely ranks poorly in international animal protection rankings.) We know that animals feel pain and fear and we know that they suffer. Their lives are valuable -- or should be considered so -- not for what they bring to us but for the fact that they are living, sentient beings.

What I'm wondering about is Rachel Notley, specifically, and our other "progressive" politicians in general. When Notley was elected Alberta premier, my animal advocate friends and colleagues were ecstatic. More women in power! More leftists! More progressive policies! More goodness and niceness! I have to wonder how these same people now feel about the fact that Notley, like other federal party leaders and many provincial and municipal politicians, showed up at the Calgary Stampede, cowboy hat and all, apparently not prepared to use her new power for goodness and niceness, at least where other species are concerned.

If progressives are so interested in protecting the environment and being a voice for those who can't speak, why were their representatives out en masse in Calgary this past weekend? Heck, Justin Trudeau even had a contest where "you and a friend" could join him at the Stampede. "Honey, you want to have pancakes with Justin Trudeau and then go watch an animal being terrorized or driven to an early death?"

I attempted to contact several of Canada's progressive leaders to ask where they stood on the treatment of animals at the Stampede. So far, only May has responded. She stated that she does not attend any animal events at the Stampede and that she is against calf-roping and chuck-wagon races.

I appreciated her response and her clarification and I understand that the Stampede is, in many ways, like Toronto's Pride Parade -- politicians are expected to be there and it's a way for them to pretend they're at ease with all voters. But wouldn't May and others make a more powerful statement by not attending the Stampede in any capacity until inhumane rodeo events are cancelled?

It isn't that Canada's progressive politicians are any worse than any other politicians where animal welfare is concerned. It's that I see no evidence they are any better. And I think it is reasonable to expect them to be

ALSO ON HUFFPOST:

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.